I want to be a woman.

[Overlord Dark Wolf]

Adding female characters doubles the receptive audience?  I would say you need to start over again on that.  Your argument is at best specious. 

Making mount and blade accessible and attractive to females has less than nothing to do with being able to create female characters.  You've demonstrated that you don't know any more than the people you are making the accusations of, however.

He didn't say adding female characters would double the customer base, but that the community's forum administrators and moderators aren't exactly welcoming to female gamers when the said admins and mods are encouraging the behavior of sexist trolls (both sides of the fence, mind you) and participating in the lewd behavior of these said trolls. Personally I try to stay out of threads like these because they seem just silly and petty when they turn into soapboxes like this had become.

 

[Dunedin]

But aside from that, the fact that there were women cited as participating and even one or two leading kinda points that, while uncommon, it still happened.

Statistics aside, if it happened then it happened.

A few droplets of water are, if not invisible, totally irrelevant to the flow of the river of history.

I like how applicable that is to each and every guy that died during that time period.

Really, how many men are named as leaders and notable versus how many there statistically were?

But a few in the river of history.

Fact is that 'river' is full of blood from millions(billions?) of unnamed folk, men and women both. To write off those that are named because they're women and not brought up as frequently or granted same opportunity as 'irrelevant to the flow of the river of time' is as inane as writing off all named people for the very same reason.

Hell, in order to make the remark you do you have to ignore two queen regnants who were both important to England's history.

I mean seriously. You just called Queen Elizabeth 'irrelevant'.

The fact that one can say 'Queen Elizabeth' and have a click of recognition proves your remark flat out wrong.

EDIT: Note I'm still working within the context of the 17th century alone.

EDIT2: I'd also like to comment on another part you replied with.

Nothing you do in game, aside from that which follows a very strict path, has anything to do with reality aside from references.
Even if you follow in the footsteps of the book(s) this is based on or the real history of the time while in-game it still won't be accurate or true.

You inherently are breaking the very concept you try to clutch onto (as a reason for women not making sense in the game) by playing the game at all.

By playing the game you are changing everything. One person messing up an entire era of history and literature. What does your gender matter in a context where you're all ready breaking every other rule?

Also you must have one freakishly mutated hand to be able to count all recorded women of just the 17th century on it. You live in Chernobyl or something?

 

[Leberecht Reinhold]

Just registered because I saw the state of this issue in these forums. (And I'm not going to delve into whether or not the game should have a female playable character - that's up to the developer on whether it wants to attract customers who wants to play females or not).
As a game developer (even though I'm only running a very small studio) and game design lecturer, who has been working for a long time trying to make gaming and the game industry more welcoming to female gamers (and thereby bringing in more female developers and potentially doubling the potential player-base - paying customers), it's a bit absurd and embarrassing to see administrators treating the question the way they do: Instead of bashing the sexist jokes, I see examples of where mods/admins tell the people making requests for female playable characters to go somewhere else. And these mods/admins, I interpret as representatives of the studio on these forums.
I understand that this issue like all others, can be the subject of double-posting and other disturbing, attention-grabbing, forumite methods, but this just seems a**-backwards in terms of how to treat your customers.

Jakob B Rogert

They are not part of the studio. Just mod/admins of the forums.

Developers have a "Developer" under his nick. Like Yazzy or Armagan, for example.

 

[Azrooh]

All I have to say is:

It's singleplayer. Restricting something like this is ridiculous.

 

[Veraxus5]

It would seem no one respects the /thread gesture anymore... Such dishonor among forumites is a travesty... So let me put it to all of you in plain words.

They say all foxes are slightly allergic to linoleum, but it's cool to the paw--try it. They say our tree may never grow back--but, one day, something will. Yes, these Crackles are made out of synthetic goose, and these Giblets come from artificial squab, and even these apples look fake--but at least they've got stars on them. So what the hell am I trying to say? Well maybe I like a little BDSM... a bit of bondage here, some spanking there, and maybe just the thought of hanky panky makes me stir crazy... But does that mean I demand it be implemented in every game I play? Just because I can't bend ol' King Harlaus over and give him twelve of the best with the old school paddle doesn't mean it should be an option... Stop thinking you, the individual customer, need to be pandered to in every decision that the company makes to develop their game.

And on a side note...

 

[Dunedin]

And stop thinking that making arbitrary conjecture about the situation with nonsensical attempts at correlations that do not meet up on any criteria.

Most the people here complained about it. They also found a solution. The demand comes from demanding half-wits stop making stupid comments. Sadly it seems they're just getting less coherent instead.

Congratulations on saying 'the developers didn't feel like it'. We established that point long ago. That's not what the complaint is about. Some speculated a patch, but most are just annoyed that they have to mod in a feature that had to be removed in a sense to present it's native state.

Is there a valid point you wish to make or are you just trolling like the rest?

 

[Veraxus5]

Sometimes I like to scrub my left nut with a toothbrush, and sometimes I like to use overly verbose and "haughty" words that make me sound "intellectually inclined" in conversations with people on a forum. The latter makes me feel better about my forum personality while the former makes me tingle inside and feel so fresh and so clean, clean.

FYI - I only read the first sentence. At this point I would like to refer you to my sig to find out how much I actually care about what you just said.

Edit (again): Oh and if you're wondering, that gif is of me. No really, I am that tall. And notice how I said tall? I think you will find that I am an optimist.

 

[Dunedin]

We covered multiple pages of 'why'.

I f you can't be bothered to read at all and think it through then stop replying to something you so vehemently refuse to understand.

Seriously Wolf? I mean I know Veraxus just admitted to not even knowing what he's talking about and being proud of such, but your comment is backwards in so many ways.

We've commented on historical accuracy, gameplay implementation, the fact that they coded females into the game all ready and that they had to intentionally hide female options that actually are there, the aesthetic and play appeal to player base, and refuted the mindless sexist comments flung back and forth.

What else do you want? It dictated to you by some fancied up ponce?

EDIT: It also appears your comment was removed.

 

[wolf88]

If you are going to reply to someone's post even if he removed it before you could even quote, then you are here for nothing but the arguement. Go complain to the company who made the game and ask them why they didnt keep this on fire and sword (the actual company who made the ''mod'' fire and sword, not taleworlds). We kept complaining here about the combat mechanics they screwed and they didnt respond. So good luck on getting respond on something so little compared to other problems the game has. Most of us are still playing warband and if you love fire and sword ''so much'' (i wouldnt know why the hell!) to choose it over warband, then you can play it without a female character as well.

 

[Dunedin]

If you are going to reply to someone's post even if he removed it before you could even quote, then you are here for nothing but the arguement. Go complain to the company who made the game and ask them why they didnt keep this on fire and sword (the actual company who made the ''mod'' fire and sword, not taleworlds). We kept complaining about the combat mechanics they screwed and they didnt respond. So good luck on getting respond on something so little compared to other problems the game has. Most of us are still playing warband and if you love fire and sword ''so much'' (i wouldnt know why the hell!) to choose it over warband, then you can play it without a female character as well.

Wow, you really don't read much of what's actually said do you...

Well to answer this response. I actually dropped out of the argument after a few kind folk modded the game to get the content back in. I'm playing the games as my they cater to my interests, if you have that much to complain about WFaS that you're abandoning back to Warbands then why are you even in the forum for WFaS?

This thread is in the WFaS section of the forum, and there have been multiple threads and complaints to the dev company, Paradox, and a few others related if you were wise enough to check before berating. If this point doesn't interest you or you don't see it of value then why are you even talking about it?

I went back into the argument when it became not about whether or not women should be in the game and instead a sexist ****-fest. Do you have an actual opinion or perspective to share or are you just here to be annoying? If not then why are you here at all?

You didn't remove your comment before I could quote. I elected not to quote it because I was posting right under the thing and it made no sense to quote as a result. I didn't think you'd come to your senses and retract such a silly comment given your track record.

EDIT: And don't worry about answering those questions. They were rhetorical and I'm pretty certain I know what the answers would be.

 

[wolf88]

Yeah i am here for sexism. Mount and Blade series are games for men and you can go back to playing your silly girly games if you are displeased of what the game includes or excludes. And like i said... those warrior women are ugly so for the game to be realistic, they have to add a character creation that can make ugly female faces like those and that must be very hard. Im sure they can come up with something that can let you make your own ugly female warrior, so you can play with her.

 

[Dunedin]

Way to not only not get the point, but also yank subject matter right out of context and wave it about like your own special dunce cap...

Taking one instance of anything and transposing that onto all as having to be so is exactly one of the problems why communication with people like you fails.

Same problem as to why we had to beat the same point that individuals verify possibility regardless of statistics (not to mention historical statistics would still be higher than in-game if the player were female) over people's heads so many times.

Like the point that Christian Cavanagh nor Julie d'Aubigny were never written of as such ugly women. Point to the contrary both were illustrated in the traditional sense of beauty for the time, so even if they didn't look that good they seemed to still pass for 'not ugly'.

Also like you seem to have missed twice now. Females were modded back in with minor model tweaks for all the armors (minutes) and code for female PCs (a minute) that was all ready in the game in pretty short order. All that's missing is the unique dialog that can be modified by some on in ~half hour to include female dialog options.

Well, you missed that and the fact that this means every single M&B game has included females in all their content save one incomplete (and as a result buried) part of WFaS.

I'd be less annoyed if they had actually removed women properly from the game. Because then at least they'd just be sexist twits rather than bad programmers.

 

[wolf88]

Youd be less annoyed because you want to see everyone as sexist and you feed on sexism. You are like; ''Yay!! Someone said something that sounds sexist. I can finally release all the rage coming from the hatred i ve been keeping againist all men. Who gives a sh.t about making female character in game?!! I can fight againist men here all i want and real men even!!! not stupid npcs.'' 

Good job revealing yourself.

Btw you are taking so long to post... Which translator are you using to translate from feminist to human?

 

[Dunedin]

...huh?

Wow you don't even know who I am, but that's a mighty fine presupposition you have there. The fact that you painted me as feeding off sexism out of some desire to spite men and all that.

Really snazzy.

No. I say sexist because it's an easy way to generalize the breadth of idiocy that's been covered by people. The thing I enjoy and argue about is things I find to be neither factual or rational.

Though it is true, I enjoy ripping into people verbally more than I do ripping into NPCs with a digital weapon. Tends to make my brain tick a little more and is about as close as I can come to socking people in the jaw without being in person.

Also good job not having any valid points.

EDIT: Though I guess you do have a point. I could just call people like you 'misinformed undereducated forum trolls' and be correct while maintaining a generalized description.

EDIT2: Sorry, I've been busy shooting people in Planetside since it's come back up. I post to you in downtime between facility raids. :p

 

[wolf88]

Wow i guess being called ''misinformed undereducated forum troll'' for not supporting your complaints was supposed to offfend me. Which name do you use to call people who support your bit.c.hy complaints then? Albert Einstein? You are speaking of valid points (since when?) but you are still not saying if you want an ugly female character creation option or not.

By the way; you dont make ''valid points'' just because you insult people. And next time you post, dont read what i say before translating it from human to feminist. This way you may speak more humane instead of raging around like your kind (unless you are just boy whos bit.ching for the possibility of gaining favor from feminists).

You won the arguement and im pulling off so you can stop filling the topic with insults, useless information about yourself and self centered satisfaction. Go celebrate it.

 

[Dunedin]

I haven't actually complained about this thing since the first day after modders released the fixed.

Like I said I've been arguing the points brought up after the argument that I found illogical and false. I know you're not inclined to go back and actually read anything that I've written, so I guess you'll have to take my word on the fact that My arguments have actually cited people and resources for my corrections. Not just 'bit.c.hy complaints' as you put it.

Or you can spend some time getting your learn on.

I actually addressed your 'ugly female' comment somewhat. Mostly in the regard that I called it pointless because it's providing a false universal context and it ignores that I all ready have what I said I wanted.

To give you an answer directly though. No. I find that choice redundant in light of the visual quality of the models in Mount&Blade any ways as well as under-representative of the populace. Should you be able to make an ugly female? Sure why not, but you can all ready do that so the question is a moot point.

I made my valid points, I was referring to them, not making them when I point them out to you. Pointing out your comprehension skills is not an insult. It's just pointing out a flaw.

If you think I'm raging then I can't imagine what puppies sound like to you.

I'm correcting you and being sarcastic in the off hand moments. I apologize if you can't comprehend words.

EDIT: Also to note, any information off topic from me is pretty notably from correcting and responding to your topics as you brought them up (I can even sight the chronology if you desire). So please don't project fault as if you aren't the one to have insulted not only me, but everyone who posted in this thread with interest in the actual topic.

As I said, I'm only here to correct what's wrong.

EDIT2: I also like how you say I fill the topic with 'useless information about yourself and self centered satisfaction' when anything about me is relegated to these last two posts (or last one post seeing as your comment was before this one and this is in correction of said post of yours).

I never insulted you. You said me calling people making comments meant to segregate and belittle genders sexist was somehow me raging (when that would be the correct terminology, it doesn't have to be an 'Omg sexist, move out feminazis!' moment every time that word is uttered). As a result I addressed the point that I was using it as a general term. To satisfy you, I offered 'misinformed undereducated forum troll' since (as I noted) my commentary has been aimed at correcting people who have posted incorrect data and for the most part have only made opinionated conjecture that offends the opposing parties thus baiting them to respond in turn.

If you don't like the term feel free to come up with one that defines you just as accurately. It's not an insult if it's true.

 

[Gr0vZ]

But aside from that, the fact that there were women cited as participating and even one or two leading kinda points that, while uncommon, it still happened.

Statistics aside, if it happened then it happened.

A few droplets of water are, if not invisible, totally irrelevant to the flow of the river of history.

I like how applicable that is to each and every guy that died during that time period.

Really, how many men are named as leaders and notable versus how many there statistically were?

But a few in the river of history.

Fact is that 'river' is full of blood from millions(billions?) of unnamed folk, men and women both. To write off those that are named because they're women and not brought up as frequently or granted same opportunity as 'irrelevant to the flow of the river of time' is as inane as writing off all named people for the very same reason.

Hell, in order to make the remark you do you have to ignore two queen regnants who were both important to England's history.

I mean seriously. You just called Queen Elizabeth 'irrelevant'.

The fact that one can say 'Queen Elizabeth' and have a click of recognition proves your remark flat out wrong.

EDIT: Note I'm still working within the context of the 17th century alone.

EDIT2: I'd also like to comment on another part you replied with.

Nothing you do in game, aside from that which follows a very strict path, has anything to do with reality aside from references.
Even if you follow in the footsteps of the book(s) this is based on or the real history of the time while in-game it still won't be accurate or true.

You inherently are breaking the very concept you try to clutch onto (as a reason for women not making sense in the game) by playing the game at all.

By playing the game you are changing everything. One person messing up an entire era of history and literature. What does your gender matter in a context where you're all ready breaking every other rule?

Also you must have one freakishly mutated hand to be able to count all recorded women of just the 17th century on it. You live in Chernobyl or something?

I find it interesting how some people can talk, talk, talk and when they stop, you realise that they said nothing that made sense, or brought anything up to the whole context of the issue. Actually, I would advise some practice on reading with understanding.
Of course my example is applicable to all men that died in wars throughout history, because they were so many, it's obvious that whoever fought and died in wars had a penis dangling between their legs, not women. Sure, most of them are anonymous, but it's a sacred fact that they were male anonymous. And I was speaking of armed people, not unarmed peasantry and citizenry casualties, were even children and elders would be slaughtered with giving out a quarrel.
I'm talking BATTLEFIELD. Queen Elizabeth, God bless her, as far as I know, didn't run around with her infantry during wars. You should finally see that I'm talking about the strict chaos of combat, not women that held power. Those were many and notable. Warrior women, not so. But, by reading most of your posts here, you are quite an opportunist; you select words that people say, twist them to serve your own reason and then present them as counter-arguments. Nice way to fail.
Also, as you didn't notice, I'm not against having women in WFaS. Yet, I want to present some reason to why their absence shouldn't be such a matter fuss. Because, even if you alter history in that game, you alter it within the realistic concept of that 17th century Central-Eastern-Northern Europe.
Before I forget, you might want to actually read the Trilogy and one or two history books, before spewing out mental farts? The Trilogy is a remarkably historically accurate collection of books, when it comes to the events and places described. The only fantastic part are the characters and their relations. Those are so personal, that even if they didn't exist, no one can say it couldn't be true, as they do not interfere with the historical outcomes.
Was the "fingers of one hand" really an reference point to you? Hah, no mate, I don't live in Chernobyl, I live in Athens, the city of "philosophers and boy-lovers". Now, go do something about yourself, because, you don't just sell us cheap opinions, but you also make miserable remarks.
Forgive me that I won't comment any of the numerous posts you made after your reply to mine, but I don't feel like going through such a swamp.

 

[Lavalya]

I think the real issue here is that M&B games are played by geeks and apparently alot of egalitarians(perhaps even feminists in some cases), so ofcourse alot of people like to play women. The previous games were alot "higher" in fantasy, and ofcourse the playerbase will "rage" when the latest game is much more historicly accurate and thus left out the female player gender, because this is a very different approach than the previous games. As such I refuse to see this game as a sequal.
I know we all like to RP or face countless challenges as a woman, but I for one am actually glad they left it out in WF&S because it adds a sense of realism to this period of time. Ofcourse the really sad part about this game, is they made it so accurate but without a proper questline that kinda defeats the point. With this being said, I dont really like the game yet. I'm waiting for all the bug fixes and hopefully a quest line.

P.S. my first reaction to the character creation was "What, no woman?" too, but once I found out a little more about the game I kind of understood, so my piece in this is "get over it".

 

[Lavalya]

I haven't actually complained about this thing since the first day after modders released the fixed.

Like I said I've been arguing the points brought up after the argument that I found illogical and false. I know you're not inclined to go back and actually read anything that I've written, so I guess you'll have to take my word on the fact that My arguments have actually cited people and resources for my corrections. Not just 'bit.c.hy complaints' as you put it.

Or you can spend some time getting your learn on.

I actually addressed your 'ugly female' comment somewhat. Mostly in the regard that I called it pointless because it's providing a false universal context and it ignores that I all ready have what I said I wanted.

To give you an answer directly though. No. I find that choice redundant in light of the visual quality of the models in Mount&Blade any ways as well as under-representative of the populace. Should you be able to make an ugly female? Sure why not, but you can all ready do that so the question is a moot point.

I made my valid points, I was referring to them, not making them when I point them out to you. Pointing out your comprehension skills is not an insult. It's just pointing out a flaw.

If you think I'm raging then I can't imagine what puppies sound like to you.

I'm correcting you and being sarcastic in the off hand moments. I apologize if you can't comprehend words.

EDIT: Also to note, any information off topic from me is pretty notably from correcting and responding to your topics as you brought them up (I can even sight the chronology if you desire). So please don't project fault as if you aren't the one to have insulted not only me, but everyone who posted in this thread with interest in the actual topic.

As I said, I'm only here to correct what's wrong.

EDIT2: I also like how you say I fill the topic with 'useless information about yourself and self centered satisfaction' when anything about me is relegated to these last two posts (or last one post seeing as your comment was before this one and this is in correction of said post of yours).

I never insulted you. You said me calling people making comments meant to segregate and belittle genders sexist was somehow me raging (when that would be the correct terminology, it doesn't have to be an 'Omg sexist, move out feminazis!' moment every time that word is uttered). As a result I addressed the point that I was using it as a general term. To satisfy you, I offered 'misinformed undereducated forum troll' since (as I noted) my commentary has been aimed at correcting people who have posted incorrect data and for the most part have only made opinionated conjecture that offends the opposing parties thus baiting them to respond in turn.

If you don't like the term feel free to come up with one that defines you just as accurately. It's not an insult if it's true.

I think people just see your arguements as being butthurt over not being able to play a woman, which I agree with.
And I can safely say nobody here is sexist, what the **** is that all about. Anyone who made sexist comments is just trolling.
I'm all for an equalitarian society and sexism happens, but this is not sexism.

I think you're completely missing the point of the game. It has importent countless historical elements while still keeping the player's freedom of action(Cant stress the ACTION enough), with one being the oppression of women. If anything, this is counter sexist. If they did keep women in the game, the game would be so sexist to them it would be completely unplayable.

 

[xenoargh]

Anyone who made sexist comments is just trolling.

That's amusing.  When people are being jerks, it's "just trolling".  Not "doing something bad" or "being deliberately asinine" or "something that they should get banned for".

I'm all for an equalitarian society...

...where girls can't play games with a character that looks even vaguely like them as the heroes.  Yup, that's egalitarian.

I'm going to say this for about the millionth time:  if you guys are truly egalitarian, and don't actually sympathize with the "just trolling" people, then you should be a little more supportive of other people having fun playing a RPG however they like.  It wouldn't hurt even the most sexist men on this forum, if a woman could play the game as a woman, would it?  No, it wouldn't.  So this is mainly about exclusion; "we don't serve your kind here" arguments, basically.  Pretty sexist on the face of it.